Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can only be Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a ''navamsha'' arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling within the same skeleton). Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in the 2nd from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method -Identify the vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in Cancer,condition satisfied. 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha Rashi- Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars is placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition satisfied.Aspects are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first case. Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements and aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - Planets placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in cancellation. Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet or lagna - eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena etc. 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In Sutras 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real moving back or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there itslef.12th from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always done w.r to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the same skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which planets or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions again within 1 body). As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point cannot be driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give any superfluos info especially in sutras. Ofcourse i respect your views too. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he did. I only > gave what he said. > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to nowhere. > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean Shadvarga as > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha ruled by > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by Atmakaraka, > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a navamsha chakra > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes and the other > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also reads what BPHS > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad vyaye saure... " > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is clearly brought > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe and its > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies a malefic > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the word rashi > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word Rasi means a > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It need not every > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in Karakamsha or > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be taken back > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove KNR's views at > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide with KNR's views. > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a different view. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing the > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it is > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the preceding > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major concern. > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is mentioned.2) Varga > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a certain rashi > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna as papa rashis > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some graha is > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri Raths > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos translation > > in this case. > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this Varga is > > navamsha. > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why did sage give > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly known.It > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from karakamsha > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a rashi. > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about shadvargas - Then > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be seen only > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande shudradevatha. > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha(Rashi) and > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically will be the > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning placement of > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra Ravou etc without > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he has no other > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help of word > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their position.Shri > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these shlokas. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha produces > > passion > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have not seen that > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini sutras, I > > also > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some other > > commentators) > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by either Venus > > or > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators say that it > > is > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of the > > shadvargas. > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha necessarily occurs in > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may be that > > amsha can > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D charts. I would > > not > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that could never > > occur. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has interpreted this > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in navamsha > > (can all > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If the 9th from > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and Kuja, he > > will be > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Vijaydas, --- 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In Sutras 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real moving back or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there itslef.12th from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn --- Could you please explain what you mean here. Are you saying 12th from karakamsha is 12th from karakamsha in navanasha? Or you are moving it back to rashi so 12th from karakamsha rashi in D-1? Satish --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from > it can only be > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a > ''navamsha'' > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both > are falling within > the same skeleton). > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply > Navamsha) in the 2nd > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. > Method -Identify the > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > Cancer,condition > satisfied. > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from > Karakamsha Rashi- > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if > Venus/Mars is > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > satisfied.Aspects > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the > first case. > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - > Placements and > aspects are more powerful than Varga > Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - Planets > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi > results in > cancellation. > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to > planet or lagna - > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be > placed in > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in > Dhanu/Meena etc. > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is > quoted.In Sutras > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no > real moving back > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling > there itslef.12th > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which > a particular > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are > always done w.r > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw > shows the same > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways > in which planets > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological > functions again within > 1 body). > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the > point cannot be > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake > shloka with > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be > evident. > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will > nver give any > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > Respect > Pradeep > ______________________________\ ____ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv./collections/265 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Dear Pradeep, I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is the karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer navamsha but it does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. As you, yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one rasi. One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one certainly can. The question is that does that by itself prove any other interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the amsha occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical explanation to support that argument. As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume you are talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some sutra that is so interpreted. I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can mean Chandra placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga does not mean that. I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating back. " , as you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha is oner of the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different grahas according to well defined rules laid down by the sages. But then I am only a student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full knowledge of the science. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can only be > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a ''navamsha'' > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling within > the same skeleton). > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in the 2nd > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method -Identify the > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in Cancer,condition > satisfied. > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha Rashi- > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars is > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition satisfied.Aspects > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first case. > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements and > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - Planets > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in > cancellation. > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet or lagna - > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena etc. > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In Sutras > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real moving back > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there itslef.12th > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always done w.r > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the same > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which planets > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions again within > 1 body). > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point cannot be > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give any > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he did. I > only > > gave what he said. > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to nowhere. > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean > Shadvarga as > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha ruled by > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by > Atmakaraka, > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a navamsha > chakra > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes and the > other > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also reads what > BPHS > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad vyaye > saure... " > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is clearly > brought > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe and its > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies a > malefic > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the word > rashi > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word Rasi means > a > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It need not > every > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in Karakamsha or > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be taken > back > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove KNR's > views at > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide with > KNR's views. > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a > different view. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing the > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it is > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the preceding > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major concern. > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is mentioned.2) > Varga > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a certain > rashi > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna as papa > rashis > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some graha is > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri Raths > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos > translation > > > in this case. > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this Varga is > > > navamsha. > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why did sage > give > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly known.It > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from > karakamsha > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a rashi. > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about shadvargas - Then > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be seen only > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > shudradevatha. > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha(Rashi) > and > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically will be > the > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning placement > of > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra Ravou etc > without > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he has no other > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help of word > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their > position.Shri > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these shlokas. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha produces > > > passion > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have not seen > that > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini sutras, I > > > also > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some other > > > commentators) > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by either > Venus > > > or > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators say that > it > > > is > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of the > > > shadvargas. > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha necessarily occurs > in > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may be that > > > amsha can > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D charts. I > would > > > not > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that could never > > > occur. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has interpreted > this > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in navamsha > > > (can all > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If the 9th > from > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and Kuja, he > > > will be > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release > Date: > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Dear Satish ji When we see the shlokas and Sutras in continuity and in a logical sequence, and also the terms rashi and varge used specifically in certain shlokas,it is more than evident that it is always from Karakamsha rashi. Thus unless specifically mentioned for example vargas of Mars and Venus Sutra,reference is always about placement from karakamsha rashi. In the other specific cases sage is talking about,amshas on the said rashis) -ie what you see in navamsha. But when nothing is mentioned,say 10th from karakamsha it means placement in rashi.Aspects too points to the same. Thus in this case,it means saturn is placed in the 12th from K.Rashi,which has to be a papa rashi as well. The key is if it is a Varga ,sage will say so.There are shlokas in BPHS pointing to shadvargas. Hope it is clear.If not i can explain with examples. Regds Prdeep , SPK <aquaris_rising wrote: > > Vijaydas, > --- > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is > quoted.In Sutras > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no > real moving back > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling > there itslef.12th > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn > --- > Could you please explain what you mean here. Are you > saying 12th from karakamsha is 12th from karakamsha in > navanasha? Or you are moving it back to rashi so 12th > from karakamsha rashi in D-1? > > Satish > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote: > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from > > it can only be > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a > > ''navamsha'' > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both > > are falling within > > the same skeleton). > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply > > Navamsha) in the 2nd > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. > > Method -Identify the > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > > Cancer,condition > > satisfied. > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from > > Karakamsha Rashi- > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if > > Venus/Mars is > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > > satisfied.Aspects > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the > > first case. > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - > > Placements and > > aspects are more powerful than Varga > > Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - Planets > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi > > results in > > cancellation. > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to > > planet or lagna - > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be > > placed in > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in > > Dhanu/Meena etc. > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is > > quoted.In Sutras > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no > > real moving back > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling > > there itslef.12th > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which > > a particular > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are > > always done w.r > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw > > shows the same > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways > > in which planets > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological > > functions again within > > 1 body). > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the > > point cannot be > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake > > shloka with > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be > > evident. > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will > > nver give any > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > > ____________________ ______________ > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list. > http://tv./collections/265 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Dear Pradeep I would really appreciate some examples please best M - vijayadas_pradeep Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:26 PM Re: Karakamsha -Chandrashekhar ji - 2 Dear Satish ji When we see the shlokas and Sutras in continuity and in a logical sequence, and also the terms rashi and varge used specifically in certain shlokas,it is more than evident that it is always from Karakamsha rashi. Thus unless specifically mentioned for example vargas of Mars and Venus Sutra,reference is always about placement from karakamsha rashi. In the other specific cases sage is talking about,amshas on the said rashis) -ie what you see in navamsha. But when nothing is mentioned,say 10th from karakamsha it means placement in rashi.Aspects too points to the same. Thus in this case,it means saturn is placed in the 12th from K.Rashi,which has to be a papa rashi as well. The key is if it is a Varga ,sage will say so.There are shlokas in BPHS pointing to shadvargas. Hope it is clear.If not i can explain with examples. Regds Prdeep , SPK <aquaris_rising wrote: > > Vijaydas, > --- > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is > quoted.In Sutras > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no > real moving back > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling > there itslef.12th > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn > --- > Could you please explain what you mean here. Are you > saying 12th from karakamsha is 12th from karakamsha in > navanasha? Or you are moving it back to rashi so 12th > from karakamsha rashi in D-1? > > Satish > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote: > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from > > it can only be > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a > > ''navamsha'' > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both > > are falling within > > the same skeleton). > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply > > Navamsha) in the 2nd > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. > > Method -Identify the > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > > Cancer,condition > > satisfied. > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from > > Karakamsha Rashi- > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if > > Venus/Mars is > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > > satisfied.Aspects > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the > > first case. > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - > > Placements and > > aspects are more powerful than Varga > > Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - Planets > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi > > results in > > cancellation. > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to > > planet or lagna - > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be > > placed in > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in > > Dhanu/Meena etc. > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is > > quoted.In Sutras > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no > > real moving back > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling > > there itslef.12th > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which > > a particular > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are > > always done w.r > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw > > shows the same > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways > > in which planets > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological > > functions again within > > 1 body). > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the > > point cannot be > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake > > shloka with > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be > > evident. > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will > > nver give any > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > > ________ ______________ > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list. > http://tv./collections/265 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Dear Chandrashehar ji , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is the > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer navamsha but it > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. As you, > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one rasi. Chandrashekhar ji I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer Rashi. It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama. Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi(Mesha Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just treat both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it possible.Within a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back to its main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is linking to the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is when we see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so only if they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating to the same rashi through amsha sambandha. > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one certainly > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any other > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we can prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical definitions. > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the amsha > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical explanation to > support that argument. 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe'' 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc are ,mentioned - but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi. Thus there is logic. > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume you are > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some sutra that > is so interpreted. Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically comprehensable for me. > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can mean Chandra > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga does not mean > that. When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in which shukra has amsha etc. But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about shadvargas of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru. Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna. > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating back. " , as > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha is oner of > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different grahas according > to well defined rules laid down by the sages. My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9 aries navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi. How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where the sector was derived from. This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or same in case of Vargottama) But then I am only a > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full knowledge of the > science. > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand the underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both the parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of it.As you always say based on Tarka and Pramana. > Chandrashekhar. Respect Pradeep > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can only be > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a ''navamsha'' > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling within > > the same skeleton). > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in the 2nd > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method -Identify the > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in Cancer,condition > > satisfied. > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha Rashi- > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars is > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition satisfied.Aspects > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first case. > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements and > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - Planets > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in > > cancellation. > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet or lagna - > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena etc. > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In Sutras > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real moving back > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there itslef.12th > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always done w.r > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the same > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which planets > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions again within > > 1 body). > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point cannot be > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give any > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he did. I > > only > > > gave what he said. > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to nowhere. > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean > > Shadvarga as > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha ruled by > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by > > Atmakaraka, > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a navamsha > > chakra > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes and the > > other > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also reads what > > BPHS > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad vyaye > > saure... " > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is clearly > > brought > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe and its > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies a > > malefic > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the word > > rashi > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word Rasi means > > a > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It need not > > every > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in Karakamsha or > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be taken > > back > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove KNR's > > views at > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide with > > KNR's views. > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a > > different view. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing the > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it is > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the preceding > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major concern. > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is mentioned.2) > > Varga > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a certain > > rashi > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna as papa > > rashis > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some graha is > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri Raths > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos > > translation > > > > in this case. > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this Varga is > > > > navamsha. > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why did sage > > give > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly known.It > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from > > karakamsha > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a rashi. > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about shadvargas - Then > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be seen only > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > > shudradevatha. > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha (Rashi) > > and > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically will be > > the > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning placement > > of > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra Ravou etc > > without > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he has no other > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help of word > > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their > > position.Shri > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these shlokas. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha produces > > > > passion > > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have not seen > > that > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini sutras, I > > > > also > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some other > > > > commentators) > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by either > > Venus > > > > or > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators say that > > it > > > > is > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of the > > > > shadvargas. > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha necessarily occurs > > in > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may be that > > > > amsha can > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D charts. I > > would > > > > not > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that could never > > > > occur. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has interpreted > > this > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in navamsha > > > > (can all > > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If the 9th > > from > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and Kuja, he > > > > will be > > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release > > Date: > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Dear Pradeep, I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me it is simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi owned by any planet which is under influence of any of the nine planets. Whether you call it as relating to the same rasi through amsha sambandha or you call it yuti in Navamsha, does it have different implications? If so what? Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means? You have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we treat one to have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha rasi or Mesha navamsha and why the fact that BPHS mentions Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. Do we take Santanam's translation to be incorrect? I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is clearly about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra. I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in only rasi and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all. Shadvargas mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic says that only Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have not also seen any astrological classic saying that the shadvargas are on lagna only, would like you to quote any reliable source for this. I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating back. " . I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument, but yet have to see that especially in connection with the karakamsha adhayaaya shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same for assuming Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there is any pramana for that be kind to share the same. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashehar ji > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is the > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer navamsha but > it > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. As you, > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one rasi. > > Chandrashekhar ji > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer Rashi. > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama. > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi(Mesha > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just treat > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it possible.Within > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back to its > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is linking to > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is when we > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so only if > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating to the > same rashi through amsha sambandha. > > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one > certainly > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any other > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we can > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical > definitions. > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the amsha > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical explanation > to > > support that argument. > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe'' > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc are ,mentioned - > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi. > > Thus there is logic. > > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume you > are > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some sutra > that > > is so interpreted. > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically comprehensable > for me. > > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can mean > Chandra > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga does not > mean > > that. > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in > which shukra has amsha etc. > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about shadvargas > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru. > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna. > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the > Rashi > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating back. " , > as > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha is oner > of > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different grahas > according > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages. > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9 aries > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi. > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where the > sector was derived from. > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or same in > case of Vargottama) > > But then I am only a > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full knowledge of > the > > science. > > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand the > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both the > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of it.As > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana. > > > Chandrashekhar. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can only be > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a ''navamsha'' > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling > within > > > the same skeleton). > > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in the > 2nd > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method -Identify the > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > Cancer,condition > > > satisfied. > > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha > Rashi- > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars is > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > satisfied.Aspects > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first case. > > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements and > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - > Planets > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in > > > cancellation. > > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet or > lagna - > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena etc. > > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In > Sutras > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real moving > back > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there > itslef.12th > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always done > w.r > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the same > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which > planets > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions again > within > > > 1 body). > > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point cannot be > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give any > > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he > did. I > > > only > > > > gave what he said. > > > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to > nowhere. > > > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean > > > Shadvarga as > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha > ruled by > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by > > > Atmakaraka, > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a navamsha > > > chakra > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes and the > > > other > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also reads > what > > > BPHS > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad vyaye > > > saure... " > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is clearly > > > brought > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe and its > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies a > > > malefic > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the word > > > rashi > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word Rasi > means > > > a > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It need > not > > > every > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in > Karakamsha or > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be > taken > > > back > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove KNR's > > > views at > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide with > > > KNR's views. > > > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a > > > different view. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing the > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it is > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the > preceding > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major > concern. > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is mentioned.2) > > > Varga > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a certain > > > rashi > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna as papa > > > rashis > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some > graha is > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri > Raths > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos > > > translation > > > > > in this case. > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this Varga is > > > > > navamsha. > > > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why did > sage > > > give > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly > known.It > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from > > > karakamsha > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a > rashi. > > > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about shadvargas - > Then > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be seen > only > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > > > shudradevatha. > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha > (Rashi) > > > and > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically > will be > > > the > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning > placement > > > of > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra Ravou etc > > > without > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he has no > other > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help of word > > > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their > > > position.Shri > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these shlokas. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha > produces > > > > > passion > > > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have not > seen > > > that > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini > sutras, I > > > > > also > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some other > > > > > commentators) > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by either > > > Venus > > > > > or > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators say > that > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of the > > > > > shadvargas. > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha necessarily > occurs > > > in > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may be > that > > > > > amsha can > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D charts. > I > > > would > > > > > not > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that could > never > > > > > occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has interpreted > > > this > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in > navamsha > > > > > (can all > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If the > 9th > > > from > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and > Kuja, he > > > > > will be > > > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release > > > Date: > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Pls find my reply , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me it is > simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi owned by any > planet which is under influence of any of the nine planets. Whether you > call it as relating to the same rasi through amsha sambandha or you call > it yuti in Navamsha, does it have different implications? If so what? Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear - eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge. > > Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means? You > have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we treat one to > have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha rasi or Mesha navamsha > and why the fact that BPHS mentions Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. > Do we take Santanam's translation to be incorrect? Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. > > I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned > specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is clearly > about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra. Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is my understanding. > > I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in only rasi > and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all. Shadvargas > mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic says that only > Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have not also seen any > astrological classic saying that the shadvargas are on lagna only, would > like you to quote any reliable source for this. Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate if it is possible otherwise. > > I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha Rashi is > nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is > relating back. " . Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna shadvargake shloka is explaining this. > > I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument, but yet > have to see that especially in connection with the karakamsha adhayaaya > shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same for assuming > Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there is any pramana > for that be kind to share the same. Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. > > Chandrashekhar. > Respect Pradeep > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashehar ji > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is the > > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer navamsha but > > it > > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. As you, > > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one rasi. > > > > Chandrashekhar ji > > > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer Rashi. > > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama. > > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi(Mesha > > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha > > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just treat > > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it possible.Within > > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back to its > > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is linking to > > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is when we > > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so only if > > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them > > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating to the > > same rashi through amsha sambandha. > > > > > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one > > certainly > > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any other > > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. > > > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we can > > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical > > definitions. > > > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the amsha > > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical explanation > > to > > > support that argument. > > > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe'' > > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc are ,mentioned - > > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi. > > > > Thus there is logic. > > > > > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume you > > are > > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some sutra > > that > > > is so interpreted. > > > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically comprehensable > > for me. > > > > > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can mean > > Chandra > > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga does not > > mean > > > that. > > > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in > > which shukra has amsha etc. > > > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about shadvargas > > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru. > > > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna. > > > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the > > Rashi > > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating back. " , > > as > > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha is oner > > of > > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different grahas > > according > > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages. > > > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9 aries > > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi. > > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where the > > sector was derived from. > > > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or same in > > case of Vargottama) > > > > But then I am only a > > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full knowledge of > > the > > > science. > > > > > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand the > > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both the > > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of it.As > > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana. > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can only be > > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from a ''navamsha'' > > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling > > within > > > > the same skeleton). > > > > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in the > > 2nd > > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method - Identify the > > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > > Cancer,condition > > > > satisfied. > > > > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha > > Rashi- > > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars is > > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > > satisfied.Aspects > > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first case. > > > > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements and > > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - > > Planets > > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in > > > > cancellation. > > > > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet or > > lagna - > > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena etc. > > > > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In > > Sutras > > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real moving > > back > > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there > > itslef.12th > > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular > > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always done > > w.r > > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the same > > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which > > planets > > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions again > > within > > > > 1 body). > > > > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point cannot be > > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with > > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > > > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give any > > > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he > > did. I > > > > only > > > > > gave what he said. > > > > > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to > > nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean > > > > Shadvarga as > > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha > > ruled by > > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by > > > > Atmakaraka, > > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a navamsha > > > > chakra > > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes and the > > > > other > > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also reads > > what > > > > BPHS > > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad vyaye > > > > saure... " > > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is clearly > > > > brought > > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe and its > > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies a > > > > malefic > > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the word > > > > rashi > > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word Rasi > > means > > > > a > > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It need > > not > > > > every > > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in > > Karakamsha or > > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be > > taken > > > > back > > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove KNR's > > > > views at > > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide with > > > > KNR's views. > > > > > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a > > > > different view. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing the > > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it is > > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the > > preceding > > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major > > concern. > > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is mentioned.2) > > > > Varga > > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a certain > > > > rashi > > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna as papa > > > > rashis > > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some > > graha is > > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri > > Raths > > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos > > > > translation > > > > > > in this case. > > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this Varga is > > > > > > navamsha. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why did > > sage > > > > give > > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly > > known.It > > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from > > > > karakamsha > > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a > > rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about shadvargas - > > Then > > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be seen > > only > > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > > > > shudradevatha. > > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha > > (Rashi) > > > > and > > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically > > will be > > > > the > > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning > > placement > > > > of > > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra Ravou etc > > > > without > > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he has no > > other > > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help of word > > > > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their > > > > position.Shri > > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these shlokas. > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha > > produces > > > > > > passion > > > > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have not > > seen > > > > that > > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini > > sutras, I > > > > > > also > > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some other > > > > > > commentators) > > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by either > > > > Venus > > > > > > or > > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators say > > that > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of the > > > > > > shadvargas. > > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha necessarily > > occurs > > > > in > > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may be > > that > > > > > > amsha can > > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D charts. > > I > > > > would > > > > > > not > > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that could > > never > > > > > > occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has interpreted > > > > this > > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in > > navamsha > > > > > > (can all > > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If the > > 9th > > > > from > > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and > > Kuja, he > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------- ----- > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release > > > > Date: > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Dear Pradeep, Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear -eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge. Do you mean that the word Amsha in " Swaamshe " does not refer to a Varga at all? I do not think so. " Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. " I do not think what you say is right. Do you mean that if Jupiter is in, say, Taurus in 11 degrees being the graha having highest degrees devoid of rasis, it would be treated to occupy Mesha rasi and not Taurus rashi- Mesha navamsha? I doubt it. And why should, in case of fear, should the amsha be placed in any other rasi in Mesha navamsha, if your contention of Karakamsha being related to rasis only is correct? These shlokas are in continuation and do not speak of any different parameters for amshas, as far as i can find in BPHS. I fail to understand the logic behind these divergent views on one and the same factor the Karakamsha/ Swamsha. " Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is my understanding. " What do you understand by navamsha rashi? What Parampara are you talking about? Will you clarify? I am sure a Parampara must have its own ancient texts to rely on that are available to those of its lineage and also public at large. I am sure if you read Chandra Kala nadi you will understand how transits can be related to navamshas. No body denies the link between rasis and amshas. It is also very obvious. Unfortunately it seems that no one wants to understand it. " Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate if it is possible otherwise. " I distinctly remember you writing that the vargas refer to shadvargas of Venus and mars, in connection with a shloka that I had quoted. Do you think that contention of yours is no longer applicable when reference is to Vargas? Even in the next paragraph of your reply you refer to " shadvargake " . " Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna shadvargake shloka is explaining this. " I do not think so. Do you mean to say that when reference is to Mesha navamsha in Meena rasi it refers only to Mesha rasi? Or do you mean there is nothing like Navamsha rashi. If so why talk about Mesha navamsha etc. at alll? After all, as you contend, Mesha could only be a rasi and anot an independent of Mesha rasi navamsha. " Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. " I get tired looking for reference in long posts but since you doubt my word, here it is. If you still doubt you said this you can just scroll down and see it in your answer that appears in one of the mails below. " When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in> > which shukra has amsha etc. " Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Pls find my reply > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me > it is > simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi > owned by any > planet which is under influence of any of the nine > planets. Whether you > call it as relating to the same rasi through > amsha sambandha or you call > it yuti in Navamsha, does it have > different implications? If so what? > > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. > (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is > the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear - > eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge. > > > > > Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means? > You > have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we > treat one to > have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha > rasi or Mesha navamsha > and why the fact that BPHS mentions > Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. > Do we take Santanam's > translation to be incorrect? > > Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus > fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. > > > > > I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned > > specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is > clearly > about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra. > > Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can > only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is > my understanding. > > > > > I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in only > rasi > and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all. > Shadvargas > mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora, Dreshkana, > Navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic > says that only > Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have not > also seen any > astrological classic saying that the shadvargas are > on lagna only, would > like you to quote any reliable source for > this. > > Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are > found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate > if it is possible otherwise. > > > > > I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha > Rashi is > nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector > within a Rashi is > relating back. " . > > Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna > shadvargake shloka is explaining this. > > > > > I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument, but > yet > have to see that especially in connection with the karakamsha > adhayaaya > shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same for > assuming > Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there > is any pramana > for that be kind to share the same. > > Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > Respect > Pradeep > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashehar ji > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is the > > > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer > navamsha but > > > it > > > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. As > you, > > > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one > rasi. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer > Rashi. > > > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama. > > > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi(Mesha > > > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha > > > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just > treat > > > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it > possible.Within > > > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back > to its > > > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is linking > to > > > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is > when we > > > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so > only if > > > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them > > > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating to > the > > > same rashi through amsha sambandha. > > > > > > > > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one > > > certainly > > > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any other > > > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. > > > > > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we can > > > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical > > > definitions. > > > > > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the > amsha > > > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical > explanation > > > to > > > > support that argument. > > > > > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe'' > > > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc > are ,mentioned - > > > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi. > > > > > > Thus there is logic. > > > > > > > > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume > you > > > are > > > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some > sutra > > > that > > > > is so interpreted. > > > > > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically > comprehensable > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can > mean > > > Chandra > > > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga does > not > > > mean > > > > that. > > > > > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in > > > which shukra has amsha etc. > > > > > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about > shadvargas > > > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru. > > > > > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna. > > > > > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but > the > > > Rashi > > > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating > back. " , > > > as > > > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha is > oner > > > of > > > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different grahas > > > according > > > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages. > > > > > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9 aries > > > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi. > > > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where > the > > > sector was derived from. > > > > > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or same > in > > > case of Vargottama) > > > > > > But then I am only a > > > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full knowledge > of > > > the > > > > science. > > > > > > > > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand the > > > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both the > > > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of > it.As > > > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana. > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can > only be > > > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from > a ''navamsha'' > > > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling > > > within > > > > > the same skeleton). > > > > > > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > > > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in > the > > > 2nd > > > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method - > Identify the > > > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > > > Cancer,condition > > > > > satisfied. > > > > > > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha > > > Rashi- > > > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars > is > > > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > > > satisfied.Aspects > > > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first > case. > > > > > > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements > and > > > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-Kemadruma - > > > Planets > > > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in > > > > > cancellation. > > > > > > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet > or > > > lagna - > > > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena > etc. > > > > > > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In > > > Sutras > > > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real > moving > > > back > > > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there > > > itslef.12th > > > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a > particular > > > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always > done > > > w.r > > > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the > same > > > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which > > > planets > > > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions > again > > > within > > > > > 1 body). > > > > > > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point > cannot be > > > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with > > > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > > > > > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give > any > > > > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he > > > did. I > > > > > only > > > > > > gave what he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to > > > nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean > > > > > Shadvarga as > > > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha > > > ruled by > > > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by > > > > > Atmakaraka, > > > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a > navamsha > > > > > chakra > > > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes > and the > > > > > other > > > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > > > > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also > reads > > > what > > > > > BPHS > > > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad > vyaye > > > > > saure... " > > > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is > clearly > > > > > brought > > > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe > and its > > > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies > a > > > > > malefic > > > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the > word > > > > > rashi > > > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word > Rasi > > > means > > > > > a > > > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It > need > > > not > > > > > every > > > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in > > > Karakamsha or > > > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be > > > taken > > > > > back > > > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove > KNR's > > > > > views at > > > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide > with > > > > > KNR's views. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a > > > > > different view. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing > the > > > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it > is > > > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the > > > preceding > > > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major > > > concern. > > > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is > mentioned.2) > > > > > Varga > > > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a > certain > > > > > rashi > > > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna > as papa > > > > > rashis > > > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some > > > graha is > > > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri > > > Raths > > > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos > > > > > translation > > > > > > > in this case. > > > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this > Varga is > > > > > > > navamsha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why > did > > > sage > > > > > give > > > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly > > > known.It > > > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from > > > > > karakamsha > > > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a > > > rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about > shadvargas - > > > Then > > > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be > seen > > > only > > > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > > > > > shudradevatha. > > > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha > > > (Rashi) > > > > > and > > > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically > > > will be > > > > > the > > > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning > > > placement > > > > > of > > > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra > Ravou etc > > > > > without > > > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he > has no > > > other > > > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help > of word > > > > > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their > > > > > position.Shri > > > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these > shlokas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha > > > produces > > > > > > > passion > > > > > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have > not > > > seen > > > > > that > > > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini > > > sutras, I > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some > other > > > > > > > commentators) > > > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by > either > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators > say > > > that > > > > > it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of > the > > > > > > > shadvargas. > > > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha > necessarily > > > occurs > > > > > in > > > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may > be > > > that > > > > > > > amsha can > > > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D > charts. > > > I > > > > > would > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that > could > > > never > > > > > > > occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has > interpreted > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in > > > navamsha > > > > > > > (can all > > > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If > the > > > 9th > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and > > > Kuja, he > > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------- > ----- > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > Release > > > > > Date: > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Yes ofcourse.It is pointing to the swamsha of the relevant graha(in this case AK) in meshadi Rashige(Rashis). Each Rashi has amsha of other Rashis within it.There is amsha Rashi samandha.Thus navamsha rashi is just an amsha of another rashi falling in a rashi.One can see this then w.r to the root rashi.Both are needed.Ifplanet is in aries it is placed in the rashi or kshethra of Aries.If it is placed in aries amsha it is not placed in aries rashi but linking to Aries rashi through amsha rashi sambandha.Lagna shadvargake shloka cannot be explained,if this concept is accepted.It is not my concept,but explained in numerous shlokas ,written thousands of years ago. Regarding vargas of shukra,it has been already explained in another mail. If you think ,i do not understand shad is six it is fine.You may kindly note that there is an etc at the end of 2nd point.The main purpose was to say that it is not lordships but vargas.Just gave 2 examples and mentioned etc. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. (Rashige > Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is the key > word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear - eg:Bhrigwonkaraka > Varge. > > Do you mean that the word Amsha in " Swaamshe " does not refer to a Varga > at all? I do not think so. > > > " Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus fear > happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. " > > I do not think what you say is right. Do you mean that if Jupiter is in, > say, Taurus in 11 degrees being the graha having highest degrees devoid > of rasis, it would be treated to occupy Mesha rasi and not Taurus rashi- > Mesha navamsha? I doubt it. And why should, in case of fear, should the > amsha be placed in any other rasi in Mesha navamsha, if your contention > of Karakamsha being related to rasis only is correct? These shlokas are > in continuation and do not speak of any different parameters for amshas, > as far as i can find in BPHS. I fail to understand the logic behind > these divergent views on one and the same factor the Karakamsha/ Swamsha. > > " Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can only > rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is my > understanding. " > > What do you understand by navamsha rashi? What Parampara are you talking > about? Will you clarify? I am sure a Parampara must have its own ancient > texts to rely on that are available to those of its lineage and also > public at large. I am sure if you read Chandra Kala nadi you will > understand how transits can be related to navamshas. No body denies the > link between rasis and amshas. It is also very obvious. Unfortunately it > seems that no one wants to understand it. > > " Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are found > either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate > if it is possible otherwise. " > > I distinctly remember you writing that the vargas refer to shadvargas of > Venus and mars, in connection with a shloka that I had quoted. Do you > think that contention of yours is no longer applicable when reference is > to Vargas? Even in the next paragraph of your reply you refer to > " shadvargake " . > > " Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna shadvargake > shloka is explaining this. " > > I do not think so. Do you mean to say that when reference is to Mesha > navamsha in Meena rasi it refers only to Mesha rasi? Or do you mean > there is nothing like Navamsha rashi. If so why talk about Mesha > navamsha etc. at alll? After all, as you contend, Mesha could only be a > rasi and anot an independent of Mesha rasi navamsha. > > " Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. " > > I get tired looking for reference in long posts but since you doubt my > word, here it is. If you still doubt you said this you can just scroll > down and see it in your answer that appears in one of the mails below. > > " When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in> > > which shukra has amsha etc. " > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Pls find my reply > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me > > it is > simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi > > owned by any > planet which is under influence of any of the nine > > planets. Whether you > call it as relating to the same rasi through > > amsha sambandha or you call > it yuti in Navamsha, does it have > > different implications? If so what? > > > > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME > > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. > > (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is > > the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear - > > eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge. > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means? > > You > have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we > > treat one to > have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha > > rasi or Mesha navamsha > and why the fact that BPHS mentions > > Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. > Do we take Santanam's > > translation to be incorrect? > > > > Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha > > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi > > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus > > fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. > > > > > > > > I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned > > > specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is > > clearly > about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra. > > > > Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can > > only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained > > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see > > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we > > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is > > my understanding. > > > > > > > > I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in only > > rasi > and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all. > > Shadvargas > mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora, Dreshkana, > > Navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic > > says that only > Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have not > > also seen any > astrological classic saying that the shadvargas are > > on lagna only, would > like you to quote any reliable source for > > this. > > > > Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned > > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are > > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are > > found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate > > if it is possible otherwise. > > > > > > > > I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha > > Rashi is > nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector > > within a Rashi is > relating back. " . > > > > Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is > > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna > > shadvargake shloka is explaining this. > > > > > > > > I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument, but > > yet > have to see that especially in connection with the karakamsha > > adhayaaya > shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same for > > assuming > Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there > > is any pramana > for that be kind to share the same. > > > > Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashehar ji > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is the > > > > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer > > navamsha but > > > > it > > > > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. As > > you, > > > > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one > > rasi. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer > > Rashi. > > > > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama. > > > > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi (Mesha > > > > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha > > > > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just > > treat > > > > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it > > possible.Within > > > > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back > > to its > > > > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is linking > > to > > > > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is > > when we > > > > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so > > only if > > > > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them > > > > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating to > > the > > > > same rashi through amsha sambandha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one > > > > certainly > > > > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any other > > > > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. > > > > > > > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we can > > > > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical > > > > definitions. > > > > > > > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the > > amsha > > > > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical > > explanation > > > > to > > > > > support that argument. > > > > > > > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe'' > > > > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc > > are ,mentioned - > > > > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi. > > > > > > > > Thus there is logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume > > you > > > > are > > > > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some > > sutra > > > > that > > > > > is so interpreted. > > > > > > > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically > > comprehensable > > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can > > mean > > > > Chandra > > > > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga does > > not > > > > mean > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in > > > > which shukra has amsha etc. > > > > > > > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about > > shadvargas > > > > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru. > > > > > > > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna. > > > > > > > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing but > > the > > > > Rashi > > > > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating > > back. " , > > > > as > > > > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha is > > oner > > > > of > > > > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different grahas > > > > according > > > > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages. > > > > > > > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9 aries > > > > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi. > > > > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where > > the > > > > sector was derived from. > > > > > > > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or same > > in > > > > case of Vargottama) > > > > > > > > But then I am only a > > > > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full knowledge > > of > > > > the > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand the > > > > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both the > > > > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of > > it.As > > > > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana. > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can > > only be > > > > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from > > a ''navamsha'' > > > > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are falling > > > > within > > > > > > the same skeleton). > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) in > > the > > > > 2nd > > > > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method - > > Identify the > > > > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > > > > Cancer,condition > > > > > > satisfied. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha > > > > Rashi- > > > > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if Venus/Mars > > is > > > > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > > > > satisfied.Aspects > > > > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > > > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements > > and > > > > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg- Kemadruma - > > > > Planets > > > > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi results in > > > > > > cancellation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to planet > > or > > > > lagna - > > > > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in Dhanu/Meena > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is quoted.In > > > > Sutras > > > > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real > > moving > > > > back > > > > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there > > > > itslef.12th > > > > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a > > particular > > > > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always > > done > > > > w.r > > > > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the > > same > > > > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in which > > > > planets > > > > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions > > again > > > > within > > > > > > 1 body). > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point > > cannot be > > > > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka with > > > > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give > > any > > > > > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the way he > > > > did. I > > > > > > only > > > > > > > gave what he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is leading to > > > > nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge mean > > > > > > Shadvarga as > > > > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be navamsha > > > > ruled by > > > > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied by > > > > > > Atmakaraka, > > > > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a > > navamsha > > > > > > chakra > > > > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes > > and the > > > > > > other > > > > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also > > reads > > > > what > > > > > > BPHS > > > > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad > > vyaye > > > > > > saure... " > > > > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is > > clearly > > > > > > brought > > > > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe > > and its > > > > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also occupies > > a > > > > > > malefic > > > > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then the > > word > > > > > > rashi > > > > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word > > Rasi > > > > means > > > > > > a > > > > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It > > need > > > > not > > > > > > every > > > > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in > > > > Karakamsha or > > > > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is to be > > > > taken > > > > > > back > > > > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not prove > > KNR's > > > > > > views at > > > > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to coincide > > with > > > > > > KNR's views. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could hold a > > > > > > different view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in isolation.Seeing > > the > > > > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if it > > is > > > > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of the > > > > preceding > > > > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our major > > > > concern. > > > > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is > > mentioned.2) > > > > > > Varga > > > > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a > > certain > > > > > > rashi > > > > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna > > as papa > > > > > > rashis > > > > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome some > > > > graha is > > > > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being mentioned.Shri > > > > Raths > > > > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain raos > > > > > > translation > > > > > > > > in this case. > > > > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this > > Varga is > > > > > > > > navamsha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why > > did > > > > sage > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is clearly > > > > known.It > > > > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements from > > > > > > karakamsha > > > > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from such a > > > > rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about > > shadvargas - > > > > Then > > > > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can be > > seen > > > > only > > > > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > > > > > > shudradevatha. > > > > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa Riksha > > > > (Rashi) > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi specifically > > > > will be > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning > > > > placement > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra > > Ravou etc > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he > > has no > > > > other > > > > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help > > of word > > > > > > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify their > > > > > > position.Shri > > > > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these > > shlokas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40> > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from swamsha > > > > produces > > > > > > > > passion > > > > > > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have > > not > > > > seen > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on Jaimini > > > > sutras, I > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some > > other > > > > > > > > commentators) > > > > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by > > either > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some commentators > > say > > > > that > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any of > > the > > > > > > > > shadvargas. > > > > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha > > necessarily > > > > occurs > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators may > > be > > > > that > > > > > > > > amsha can > > > > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D > > charts. > > > > I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that > > could > > > > never > > > > > > > > occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has > > interpreted > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it is in > > > > navamsha > > > > > > > > (can all > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. If > > the > > > > 9th > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra and > > > > Kuja, he > > > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- --- > > ----- > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > > Release > > > > > > Date: > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------- --- > > - > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release > > > > Date: > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Dear Pradeep, What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha lords over two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least. Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another rasi and ruled by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi. I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not understand Shad is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is not plural, as you were claiming. I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were written thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the depth of knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the commentaries and even other classics are of much more modern times. However the antiquity or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its quality. At the same time one must understand that most of the ancient texts had many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some learned astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts and their interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so many commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too much if we say that only this commentator is right and everybody else is wrong. Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Yes ofcourse.It is pointing to the swamsha of the relevant graha(in > this case AK) in meshadi Rashige(Rashis). > Each Rashi has amsha of other Rashis within it.There is amsha Rashi > samandha.Thus navamsha rashi is just an amsha of another rashi > falling in a rashi.One can see this then w.r to the root rashi.Both > are needed.Ifplanet is in aries it is placed in the rashi or kshethra > of Aries.If it is placed in aries amsha it is not placed in aries > rashi but linking to Aries rashi through amsha rashi sambandha.Lagna > shadvargake shloka cannot be explained,if this concept is accepted.It > is not my concept,but explained in numerous shlokas ,written > thousands of years ago. > > Regarding vargas of shukra,it has been already explained in another > mail. > If you think ,i do not understand shad is six it is fine.You may > kindly note that there is an etc at the end of 2nd point.The main > purpose was to say that it is not lordships but vargas.Just gave 2 > examples and mentioned etc. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME > > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. > (Rashige > > Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is the key > > word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear - > eg:Bhrigwonkaraka > > Varge. > > > > Do you mean that the word Amsha in " Swaamshe " does not refer to a > Varga > > at all? I do not think so. > > > > > > " Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha > > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi > > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus > fear > > happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. " > > > > I do not think what you say is right. Do you mean that if Jupiter > is in, > > say, Taurus in 11 degrees being the graha having highest degrees > devoid > > of rasis, it would be treated to occupy Mesha rasi and not Taurus > rashi- > > Mesha navamsha? I doubt it. And why should, in case of fear, should > the > > amsha be placed in any other rasi in Mesha navamsha, if your > contention > > of Karakamsha being related to rasis only is correct? These shlokas > are > > in continuation and do not speak of any different parameters for > amshas, > > as far as i can find in BPHS. I fail to understand the logic behind > > these divergent views on one and the same factor the Karakamsha/ > Swamsha. > > > > " Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can > only > > rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained > > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see > > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we > > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is > my > > understanding. " > > > > What do you understand by navamsha rashi? What Parampara are you > talking > > about? Will you clarify? I am sure a Parampara must have its own > ancient > > texts to rely on that are available to those of its lineage and > also > > public at large. I am sure if you read Chandra Kala nadi you will > > understand how transits can be related to navamshas. No body denies > the > > link between rasis and amshas. It is also very obvious. > Unfortunately it > > seems that no one wants to understand it. > > > > " Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned > > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are > > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are > found > > either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate > > if it is possible otherwise. " > > > > I distinctly remember you writing that the vargas refer to > shadvargas of > > Venus and mars, in connection with a shloka that I had quoted. Do > you > > think that contention of yours is no longer applicable when > reference is > > to Vargas? Even in the next paragraph of your reply you refer to > > " shadvargake " . > > > > " Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is > > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna > shadvargake > > shloka is explaining this. " > > > > I do not think so. Do you mean to say that when reference is to > Mesha > > navamsha in Meena rasi it refers only to Mesha rasi? Or do you mean > > there is nothing like Navamsha rashi. If so why talk about Mesha > > navamsha etc. at alll? After all, as you contend, Mesha could only > be a > > rasi and anot an independent of Mesha rasi navamsha. > > > > " Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. " > > > > I get tired looking for reference in long posts but since you doubt > my > > word, here it is. If you still doubt you said this you can just > scroll > > down and see it in your answer that appears in one of the mails > below. > > > > " When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which > > > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in> > > > which shukra has amsha etc. " > > > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > Pls find my reply > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me > > > it is > simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi > > > owned by any > planet which is under influence of any of the nine > > > planets. Whether you > call it as relating to the same rasi > through > > > amsha sambandha or you call > it yuti in Navamsha, does it have > > > different implications? If so what? > > > > > > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME > > > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi. > > > (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi > is > > > the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear - > > > eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge. > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means? > > > You > have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we > > > treat one to > have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha > > > rasi or Mesha navamsha > and why the fact that BPHS mentions > > > Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. > Do we take Santanam's > > > translation to be incorrect? > > > > > > Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha > > > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi > > > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus > > > fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. > > > > > > > > > > > I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned > > > > specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is > > > clearly > about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra. > > > > > > Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can > > > only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained > > > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see > > > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we > > > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is > > > my understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in > only > > > rasi > and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all. > > > Shadvargas > mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora, > Dreshkana, > > > Navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic > > > says that only > Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have > not > > > also seen any > astrological classic saying that the shadvargas > are > > > on lagna only, would > like you to quote any reliable source for > > > this. > > > > > > Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned > > > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are > > > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are > > > found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls > demonstrate > > > if it is possible otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha > > > Rashi is > nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector > > > within a Rashi is > relating back. " . > > > > > > Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is > > > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna > > > shadvargake shloka is explaining this. > > > > > > > > > > > I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument, > but > > > yet > have to see that especially in connection with the > karakamsha > > > adhayaaya > shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same > for > > > assuming > Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there > > > is any pramana > for that be kind to share the same. > > > > > > Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashehar ji > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is > the > > > > > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer > > > navamsha but > > > > > it > > > > > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose. > As > > > you, > > > > > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one > > > rasi. > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer > > > Rashi. > > > > > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama. > > > > > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi > (Mesha > > > > > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha > > > > > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just > > > treat > > > > > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it > > > possible.Within > > > > > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back > > > to its > > > > > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is > linking > > > to > > > > > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is > > > when we > > > > > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so > > > only if > > > > > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them > > > > > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating > to > > > the > > > > > same rashi through amsha sambandha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one > > > > > certainly > > > > > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any > other > > > > > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so. > > > > > > > > > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we > can > > > > > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical > > > > > definitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the > > > amsha > > > > > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical > > > explanation > > > > > to > > > > > > support that argument. > > > > > > > > > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe'' > > > > > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc > > > are ,mentioned - > > > > > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume > > > you > > > > > are > > > > > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some > > > sutra > > > > > that > > > > > > is so interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically > > > comprehensable > > > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can > > > mean > > > > > Chandra > > > > > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga > does > > > not > > > > > mean > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in > which > > > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi > in > > > > > which shukra has amsha etc. > > > > > > > > > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about > > > shadvargas > > > > > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru. > > > > > > > > > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna. > > > > > > > > > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing > but > > > the > > > > > Rashi > > > > > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating > > > back. " , > > > > > as > > > > > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha > is > > > oner > > > > > of > > > > > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different > grahas > > > > > according > > > > > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages. > > > > > > > > > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9 > aries > > > > > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi. > > > > > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where > > > the > > > > > sector was derived from. > > > > > > > > > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or > same > > > in > > > > > case of Vargottama) > > > > > > > > > > But then I am only a > > > > > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full > knowledge > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand > the > > > > > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both > the > > > > > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of > > > it.As > > > > > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana. > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can > > > only be > > > > > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from > > > a ''navamsha'' > > > > > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are > falling > > > > > within > > > > > > > the same skeleton). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha) > in > > > the > > > > > 2nd > > > > > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method - > > > Identify the > > > > > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in > > > > > Cancer,condition > > > > > > > satisfied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from > Karakamsha > > > > > Rashi- > > > > > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if > Venus/Mars > > > is > > > > > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition > > > > > satisfied.Aspects > > > > > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha > > > > > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements > > > and > > > > > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg- > Kemadruma - > > > > > Planets > > > > > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi > results in > > > > > > > cancellation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to > planet > > > or > > > > > lagna - > > > > > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in > > > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in > > > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in > Dhanu/Meena > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is > quoted.In > > > > > Sutras > > > > > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real > > > moving > > > > > back > > > > > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there > > > > > itslef.12th > > > > > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a > > > particular > > > > > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always > > > done > > > > > w.r > > > > > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the > > > same > > > > > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in > which > > > > > planets > > > > > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions > > > again > > > > > within > > > > > > > 1 body). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point > > > cannot be > > > > > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka > with > > > > > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give > > > any > > > > > > > superfluos info especially in sutras. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the > way he > > > > > did. I > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > gave what he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is > leading to > > > > > nowhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge > mean > > > > > > > Shadvarga as > > > > > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be > navamsha > > > > > ruled by > > > > > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha occupied > by > > > > > > > Atmakaraka, > > > > > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a > > > navamsha > > > > > > > chakra > > > > > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20 minutes > > > and the > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one also > > > reads > > > > > what > > > > > > > BPHS > > > > > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad > > > vyaye > > > > > > > saure... " > > > > > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is > > > clearly > > > > > > > brought > > > > > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to paparxe > > > and its > > > > > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also > occupies > > > a > > > > > > > malefic > > > > > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then > the > > > word > > > > > > > rashi > > > > > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the word > > > Rasi > > > > > means > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi. It > > > need > > > > > not > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in > > > > > Karakamsha or > > > > > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is > to be > > > > > taken > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not > prove > > > KNR's > > > > > > > views at > > > > > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to > coincide > > > with > > > > > > > KNR's views. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could > hold a > > > > > > > different view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in > isolation.Seeing > > > the > > > > > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge'' if > it > > > is > > > > > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of > the > > > > > preceding > > > > > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc. > > > > > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our > major > > > > > concern. > > > > > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is > > > mentioned.2) > > > > > > > Varga > > > > > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having a > > > certain > > > > > > > rashi > > > > > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with lagna > > > as papa > > > > > > > rashis > > > > > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome > some > > > > > graha is > > > > > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted. > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being > mentioned.Shri > > > > > Raths > > > > > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain > raos > > > > > > > translation > > > > > > > > > in this case. > > > > > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this > > > Varga is > > > > > > > > > navamsha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be short.Why > > > did > > > > > sage > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is > clearly > > > > > known.It > > > > > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements > from > > > > > > > karakamsha > > > > > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from > such a > > > > > rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about > > > shadvargas - > > > > > Then > > > > > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas can > be > > > seen > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande > > > > > > > shudradevatha. > > > > > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa > Riksha > > > > > (Rashi) > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi > specifically > > > > > will be > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was mentioning > > > > > placement > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra > > > Ravou etc > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he > > > has no > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with help > > > of word > > > > > > > > > Riksha or Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views. > > > > > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify > their > > > > > > > position.Shri > > > > > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these > > > shlokas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > > > > > > <%40>, > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from > swamsha > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > > passion > > > > > > > > > > and illicit relationship " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I have > > > not > > > > > seen > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on > Jaimini > > > > > sutras, I > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some > > > other > > > > > > > > > commentators) > > > > > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled by > > > either > > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some > commentators > > > say > > > > > that > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be any > of > > > the > > > > > > > > > shadvargas. > > > > > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha > > > necessarily > > > > > occurs > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators > may > > > be > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > amsha can > > > > > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D > > > charts. > > > > > I > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart that > > > could > > > > > never > > > > > > > > > occur. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has > > > interpreted > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it > is in > > > > > navamsha > > > > > > > > > (can all > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha. > If > > > the > > > > > 9th > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of Sukra > and > > > > > Kuja, he > > > > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > > > > fond of others' wives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------- > --- > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > > > Release > > > > > > > Date: > > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------- > --- > > > - > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - > Release > > > > > Date: > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.